1 2025:CGHC:26036 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 3047 of 2025 1 - Deepak Dewangan S/o Narayan Dewangan Aged About 39 Years R/o Itwari Bazar, Ward No.-9, Khairagarh, District Khairagarh-Chhuikhadan-Gandai (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Urban Administration And Development Department, Ministry, Mahanadi Bhawan, Nava Raipur, Atal Nagar, Raipur, District - Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Collector Khairagarh, District Khairagarh-Chhuikhadan-Gandai (C.G.) 3 - Nagar Palika Parishad Khairagarh District Khairagarh-Chhuikhadan-Gandai (C.G.) 4 - Kuldeep Jha Cmo Nagar Palik Parishad Khariagarh, District Khairagarh-Chhuikhadan- Gandai (C.G.), Now- Post As Lekha Pal At Chhuikhadan Nagar Panchayat 5 - Shailendra Verma President Nagar Palik Parishad Khariagarh, District Khairagarh- Chhuikhadan-Gandai (C.G.), Now - Member Of Ward No.-2, Pipariya, Khairagarh, District Khairagarh-Chhuikhadan-Gandai (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Sourabh Sonwani, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mrs. Akansha Verma Dabhadkar, Panel Lawyer 2 Hon’ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma, Judge Order on Board 20/06/2025 1. With the consent of the parties, the present matter is heard finally. 2. The petitioner has filed the present petition praying for the following relief(s): “10.1 That, the Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire records pertaining to this case from possession of the Court below. 10.2 That, the Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent authority to take appropriate action against the respondent no. 4 and 5 to register the FIR against them. 10.3 Any other relief which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper, may also be passed in favour of the petitioner.” 3. Brief facts of the case is that Shri Kuldeep Jha who is presently posted as Accountant in Nagar Panchayat Chhuikhadan District- Khairagarh- Chhuikhadan-Gandai. Prior to this he was posted as In-charge Chief Municipal Offricer in Municipal Council Khairagarh. During his posting period in Khairagarh, gross negligence in Chairman and Councilor Fund head in Municipal Council Khairagarh, in connivance with former Chairman and current Councilor Ward No. 02 Shri Shailendra Verma, by showing purchase of gym equipment, fake payment of lakhs of rupees 3 has been made and huge corruption has been committed by committing financial irregularities of lakhs of rupees. It is clearly mentioned in the documents of the municipality that certificate number 226 dated 25.07.2023 amount of Rs. 17,64,000/- cheque number 660944/SBI-35 has been paid to Singh Associate Khairagarh and certificate number 227 dated 25.07.2023 amount of Rs. 20,09,000/- cheque number 660945/SBI-35 has been paid to Shri Ishan Singh Nagvanshi. Both the above payments are related to the purchase of gym material under the Councilor/Chairman Fund. The rules and procedures have not been followed by the municipality before paying the above amount. In this case, neither the quotation of the material has been invited nor any kind of tender process has been processed under the rules. Rather, ignoring all the formal proceedings, the process of fake payment has been completed with the intention of corruption only on paper. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner prayed for compliance of order dated 03.07.2024 (Annexure P/1) stating that till date no action has been taken against the respondent no. 4 and 5. 5. Learned State Counsel opposes the submission of the counsel for the petitioner and submits that the authorities are taking action in chronological manner and there is no need of issuance of direction from this Court. Hence, the petition is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the record with utmost circumspection. 7. The petitioner has prayed for registration of FIR against the respondent 4 no. 4 and 5 as per Annexure P/5 but on perusal of Annexure P/1 and P/5 it is crystal clear that C.G. Government Urban Administration and Development Department has already taken action against respondent no. 4 and 5 and there is no mention for registration of FIR against the respondent no. 4 and 5. Therefore, the prayer of the petitioner is not maintainable and hence the petition itself is not maintainable. 8. Accordingly, the present petition stands dismissed. Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) JUDGE Madhurima